CBS News has obtained the CIA talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on Sept. 15 regarding the fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, four days earlier. CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan says the talking points, which were also given to members of the House intelligence committee, make no reference to terrorism being a likely factor in the assault, which left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

"Available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault... There are indications that extremists participated," read the CIA's talking points.

Who issued these talking points? And did this person get orders from above him. There is no doubt that the top part of the chain is King Obama. He is a liar, cheat, and typical Chicago communists criminal.

In the second debate (the Crowley debate) Obama said he called it a terroist attack “from day one”. So why would he give the wrong talking points to Rice and congress. He was definately lying to someone. Either he was lying to Rice when he sent her out on the Sunday shows or he was lying to 60 million people watching the debates. Either way, he has just been caught lying (again).

Did CBS get these papers from the same who gave papers to Dan Rather about George Bush? Hahahaha!! LMAO!!
Hey, On Friday Petraeus was resigning because of an “extramarital affair” By yesterday it is a “SEX SCANDAL”.
HAAAA!!!

"In the second debate (the Crowley debate) Obama said he called it a terroist attack from day one. So why would he give the wrong talking points to Rice and congress. He was definitely lying to someone. Either he was lying to Rice when he sent her out on the Sunday shows or he was lying to 60 million people watching the debates. Either way, he has just been caught lying (again)."

The blatant assertion during the debate versus the point you make about "talking points" is the key.

Let’s see: Petraeus was given an extra 180k by the Administration via a job for his wife (on top of his 220k military pension and 180k CIA director salary). He was living high on the hog and had little reason to rock the boat. Especially since he knew at the time he testified that the FBI was aware of his affair and he likely presumed that White House was as well.

Even Obama said she didn’t know anything about this, yet she was put out!!!

Krauthammer was right when he said that if she didn’t know anything (which is what Obama said) the why send her out to 5 Sunday Shows? Looks to me like ground zero of the “war on women” is at the White House. That was a nasty thing for him to do to her.

The Obama Rose Garden comments were generic about acts of terror and not specific about terrorist attacks in Benghazi. Typical community organizer talk that contains words without meaning and a fun house full of smoke and mirrors.

The knowing telling of an untruth with intent to deceive and induce reliance.

A lot of us have been throwing around accusations that Rice lied. If she relied on talking points supplied to her directly by the CIA it seems to me she has the right to claim innocence of lying but she has to plead guilty to criminal naïveté and be disbarred from high office.

Rather than discount entirely this story, let us accept that she received talking points as described from the CIA. Immediately one wants to know who in the CIA wrote those talking points and who was responsible for them. Enter former head of the CIA General Petreus, why might he have been involved in presenting false talking points and why might he have rendered false testimony to Congress (whether under oath or not he is legally obligated to tell the truth on pain of criminal sanction) confirming that the "demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault "?

Rather than accept that Obama simply blackmailed Petreus the far more likely scenario has already been told to us in part by his mistress in her speech in Denver in which she stated that the CIA was keeping prisoners in the Annex. Evidently, this is a crime for the CIA to keep prisoners. There was a high degree of motivation in the head of the CIA to keep that criminality secret not just because it was something that might implicate him personally but because it would discredit American foreign policy, if you accept the Obama view that making nice to terrorists is a foreign policy.

Petreus might have regarded it as an act patriotism; at the time he saw himself acting to protect the institution and the country. He might even have believed that he was nobly falling on his sword for his Commander-In-Chief.

If that is the case, it was a case of grossly misplaced patriotism worse than the Iran-Contra affair. We will have to see what transpires Friday in Petreus' testimony when it gets leaked.

This comes out now that the CIA has been discredited and Graham threatens to tie up Rice’s nomination.
OK. What kind of an idiot goes out to talk on five news shows about a subject she knows nothing about. Shouldn’t a Secretary of State be smarter than a tape recorder?

26
posted on 11/15/2012 9:27:42 AM PST
by blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")

CIA talking points? Or talking points prepared by the White House and called “CIA Talking Points”? Question for CBS: Is the talking points document signed? (Why do I feel we have been through something like this with Dan Rather?)

30
posted on 11/15/2012 9:39:08 AM PST
by Rapscallion
( OBAMA: You own it now. See if you can govern it.)

"Who issued these talking points? And did this person get orders from above him."

Exactly. Who put them together? Who authorized for them to be put together? Who was the first person to recommend the attack be blamed on the video? Just more smoke and mirrors from this administration.

33
posted on 11/15/2012 10:03:42 AM PST
by mass55th
(Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)

Clinton was actually somewhat credible when he said he did not have “sexual relations” with that women. There is not reason to suspect that he was lying. But only because “sexual relations” has a very specific definition that the vast majority of people are unfamiliar with.

Politicians are great at non-denial denials and non-apology apologies.

WRT to Rice: I am not entirely sure that she knew she was deceiving the public. It is quite possible that she’s operating under a politically correct model of reality. Everybody employs a model of the world — a worldview — to interpret events. Many highly educated and intelligent people have very sophisticated models that enable them to arrive at the conclusion that everything that goes wrong is due to an excess of individual liberty and that a more comprehensive tyranny is necessary for the public good.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.